Do you like to smell the strong cigarette smoke at public places? NO!

Hello! I'm a Grade 12 student. My teacher has assigned the following topic. I wonder if anybody can give me some commons about my essay before I hand in to my teacher.Thank you very much!

-----

Ontario and Quebec governments have recently set up a law against smoking in public places, including restaurants, pubs, or clubs. Agree or disagree with this law. Explain your answers.

Do you like to smell the strong cigarette smoke at restaurants? Do you like to sit nearby a smoker? If you answer "no" (should "n" be capitalized?) to these questions, you will be glad to see that a law, which bans smoking in all public places, has been set up in Quebec and Ontario, and I totally agree to this law. It is because this law is beneficial to non-smokers, smokers, and business owners that I agree to it.

On the one hand, prohibiting smoking in public places provides a healthy environment for non-smokers and children. Many people, including me, are not cigarette smokers. Most of us hate to inhale second-hand smoke emitted by smokers, so we often have to hold our breath while passing through clouds of noxious fumes. After this law is established, we do not need to worry about being poisoned by second-hand smoke anymore.

On the other hand, in consequence of restricting cigarette addicts' smoking place, smokers may smoke less frequently than they used to. As a result, their health can (be?) improved gradually. In fact, A Canadian Health Magazine has shown if smokers have stopped smoking for twenty-four hours, their blood pressure will return to normal, their cilia in the bronchi will start to beat up again, and their chances of getting lung cancers will be reduced by one-fifth. Also, since they smoke infrequently, they can save thousands of dollars on buying cigarettes over the years.

Furthermore, this law can indirectly help to boom business industry. The restaurants have a much cleaner and healthier environment than before. No more toxic fumes flowing in the restaurants, more customers would like to go to their places to have a drink. Besides, business owners no longer need to worry about their stores being damaged by the burning cigarettes. Therefore, the chances of fire hazards in public places will be reduced by the establishment of this law.

Although some people may think that this law restricts smokers' freedom, I believe that Quebec and Ontario governments have made an excellent choice. I really hope that our province could also create this law so that our health can be improved as well.

Overall, this is a very fine essay!! I just have a few comments, below.

agree WITH it, not TO it
no should NOT be capitalized
"on the one hand" and "on the other hand" should only be used when presenting conflicting arguments -- you might want to try "first of all" and "second of all"
not "in consequence," but "as a consequence"
"smoking places," not "smoking place"
You are assuming smokers WILL smoke less, which isn't actually proven -- you might want to be more careful here

It seems like you worked very hard on this essay, but there are a few minor changes hat will make your essay seem more sophisticated.

*"and i totally agree with this law" seems juvenile so you may want to use something like "Myself and many others strongly support this law."

*"it is because" used in the first paragraph doesnt fit. 'It' is the wrong pronoun. you should say 'I agree with the banning of smoking in public places because....' This keeps the original question in reader's minds.

*You shouldn't say "after this law is established" because the law has not been established yet. You are trying to persuade the law to be passed, so say "if this law were passed". Also in the second paragraph, use stronger terms. instead of saying "most of us" say "No one enjoys...."

*The one major problem you have is tense. You need to keep in mind that th e law has not been passed in many areas yet. so say "That if a smoker stops..." not "if a smoker stopped"

*"on the one hand" and "n the other hand" should not be used because they are not two different arguments.